Talk:Health effects of salt/Archive 1

What Hungryce (talk) 13:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC) did

Hi I have fixed some grammar but am not going to do much to this page later. If you revert my edits this is fine I am only trying to help. Thanks Hungryce (talk) 13:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ref retracted - patients with heart failure

See http://heart.bmj.com/content/99/11/820.2.full --Ronz (talk) 20:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In those with heart failure a very low sodium diet of 1,800 mg per day was worse than a diet of 2,800 mg per day.^[1] This very low sodium diet had a twofold increased risk of death.^[1]

References

^ ^a ^b Dinicolantonio, JJ; Pasquale, PD; Taylor, RS; Hackam, DG (Mar 12, 2013). "Low sodium versus normal sodium diets in systolic heart failure: systematic review and meta-analysis". Heart (British Cardiac Society). doi:10.1136/heartjnl-2012-302337. PMID 22914535.

It was not the fault of the reviewers that the data have been lost. Retracted should be equated with unproven, not with disproved. Besides, as any medical researcher knows, correlation does not prove causality. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?

Possibly this should be merged with Salt and cardiovascular disease? Don't these two articles cover primarily the same material? Geoffrey.landis (talk) 20:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

History of salt use in lede

Heaviside glow: respectfully, I don't see the value of this statement in the lede, and the source doesn't support either the historical use of salt before WWII or the idea that refrigeration led to less salt use. I dispute that this information has sufficient importance or source to be in the lede. --Zefr (talk) 22:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Content removed: Prior to WWII, people ate more salt than they do now, because food was preserved in salt. Refrigeration has led to a reduction in salt intake.^[1]

References

^ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/its-time-to-end-the-war-on-salt/

Please provide your evidence that allows you to dispute a secondary source. Heaviside glow (talk) 18:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You used the Sci Am article to support the historical use of salt before WWII and the idea that refrigeration led to less salt use. The source doesn't say those things. Also, that content is not lede material and is not supported by any other source. --Zefr (talk) 18:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you that sources can be found to support those statements. Given that the topic of the article is the health effects of salt, I find your assertion that the health effects of salt are not an appropriate topic for the lede deeply troubling. Perhaps you could explain? Heaviside glow (talk) 19:08, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to miss the point: salt use before WWII and refrigeration are minor factors and topics in the use of salt today and its effects on health. The Sci Am article is really a critique about salt intake recommendations, a topic adequately covered with expert sources in the article. Time to move on. --Zefr (talk) 19:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Mr. Article WP:OWNER for disturbing your ownership of this topic. I will not be moving on. My point is backed up by far more sources than I have provided here. Heaviside glow (talk) 22:02, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please spend time with WP:REFB so you learn how to cite sources within a template, WP:CT. --Zefr (talk) 23:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

race or ethnicity?

An edit to the lede replaced the word "race" with "ethnicity," with the comment (US-typical racist choice of words corrected: all but one of the human races, Homo sapiens, are extinct. Skin-colour and ancestry do not constitute races any more than hair or eye colour does. What you refer to are ethnicities...). I'm reverting this, since I believe "race" more accurately reflects the citations, but I'm willing to listen to a discussion of which word is more accurate. I'm not interested in politically correct changing of wording just for the sake of political correctness, but if "ethnicity" is more accurate than "race", we should use it. Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 20:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the US, race is appropriate as defined here. Ethnicity is defined more as a category, such as Latinos. The Peters reference used in the lede to cite salt sensitivity in US blacks is 17 years old; might be better to use a more current source, such as from the AHA. --Zefr (talk) 22:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source(s) for Lede

Salt consumption has fluctuated during modern times.

There is no source for this at all.

Scientists have become aware of health risks associated with high salt intake,

"risks";plural probably isn't true but anyway, the source says nothing like that

including high blood pressure

The source states: too much sodium is bad for your health. Excess sodium can increase your blood pressure and your risk for a heart disease and stroke.

This is a bit vague. I would prefer a source that goes more into specifics. Have studies not shown that most people do not react with higher blood pressure to high salt intake? Is a healthy body not generally able to excrete excess Sodium?

in sensitive individuals

While I personally belive this to be true, it is not in the source at all.

We then go on to contradict our own lede - with much better sourcing: the effect of high salt consumption on long term health is controversial.[22] Some suggest that the effects of high salt consumption are insignificant. Reduced salt intake results only in a small reduction in blood pressure.

Then the claim returns: Sodium intake is "well known" (weasel words) to be associated with increased blood pressure, particularly in sensitive populations.

Again, this is not at all given in the same source from before masked as a different source. --2A02:8071:B693:BE00:50A5:D605:C9DB:B8AA (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Salt room

This topic needs treatment somewhere. Put "salt room" into Google and there are tons. In fact there's one 2 miles from my home, never visited. I could write on it, but I'm not a doctor or biologist and would be out of my depth writing on its alleged health benefits. deisenbe (talk) 21:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Health effects of salt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Din2013-1] Dinicolantonio, JJ; Pasquale, PD; Taylor, RS; Hackam, DG (Mar 12, 2013). "Low sodium versus normal sodium diets in systolic heart failure: systematic review and meta-analysis". Heart (British Cardiac Society). doi:10.1136/heartjnl-2012-302337. PMID 22914535.

[2] ttps://www.scientificamerican.com/article/its-time-to-end-the-war-on-salt/

[1]

[1]